policy reason for them not to do it. >> i mean there's been the questions about responding to sanctions. i mean even today people are wondering, is it tied to state of the union. is it sort of a direct, you know, push against the u.s.? >> i don't think so. i mean, in 2009 we heard this exact same thing. it was a condemnation of their april 2009 missile launch. the north koreans six weeks later conducted a second nuclear test in which they said it was because of the condemnation that occurred over their missile tests. you know, the response to that is that's nonsense. nobody conducts nuclear tests because they've been chastised over a missile test. more specifically, i would say if you're looking at a concurrence of time, it's not the state of the union. it's the two weeks prior to the inauguration of a new south korean president. >> brown: to another part of the world. we'll get back to that. let me ask james acton, the north korean official news agency referred to this as a miniaturized and lighter nuclear device with greater explosive force than previously. what does that mean? what c